Chatbox

Hi, I believe Miss Susan Grange moved with her folks to the west side of Audlem.

It is her birthday week this week.

If you know Susan please wish her Happy Birthday o my behalf. I worked with her whilst as a volunteer at the Beech Tree Community Centre in Whitchurch.

I know she does not drive so might appreciate a Birthday Greeting in passing if you know her know of her.

Lots of love Susan, 🍰

David Farmer

Reported by Chris Briggs
At the PC meeting last night it was reported that CPS have given the police the authority to bring charges against two suspected individuals over the missing APC monies.

The problem with the road from Moorsfield and the Canal Bridge is that it represents a danger everyday, NOT just at Christmas. With the ever increasing traffic and in particular HGV and large vehicles it seems an accident waiting to happen. This pavement over the Canal Bridge is just 14 inches wide and uneven, and it is very easy to slip into the road. In fact many pedestrians walk on the road itself which is a danger.
The sloping pavement from Moorsfield is another big problem. We have already had an incident where a mobility scooter tipped into the road on this section, landing on top of the elderly resident. Fortunately the traffic both ways managed to stop in time to prevent a tragedy.
These photos are of real situations that happen frequently along this stretch, as anyone who lives this side of the canal will verify.

Agree entirely with Tommy. Pure and simple NIMBYISM attitude.

Can you help make Audlem safer? If you can spare an hour a week, please get in touch with me at 07377 623993 or via email at gmacbrown@hotmail.com.

Audlem SpeedWatch is seeking more volunteers to assist the Cheshire Police Area Strategic Road Safety Partnership in educating drivers entering and leaving Audlem about the importance of adhering to the official speed limit. We monitor traffic for one-hour sessions. During a recent SpeedWatch, we observed and reported to the Police that 16 vehicles—approximately one every four minutes—were exceeding the speed limit as they entered and left Audlem.
Audlem SpeedWatch anticipate a significant increase in vehicle traffic. Currently, vehicles over 7 tons travelling to Nantwich or Whitchurch are not permitted to use Baddington Lane Bridge and are being diverted through Audlem, resulting in heavy traffic levels that the village cannot accommodate.

Thank you.

George McLaren-Brown

JUNIPER LIVE IN AUDLEM + special guests Wet the Tea || Sun 31st May || Audlem Public Hall at 3pm

ANNA VAUGHAN RETURNS TO AUDLEM FOR A ONE TIME ONLY SHOW. TICKETS AVAILABLE AT Juniperfolk.co.uk

Genre-bending, energising, mesmerising, boundary-crossing…
Juniper are a group of close friends who combine their collective musical influences on the stage to create a show perhaps best described as orchestral Celtic & contemporary folk.

Their powerful sound is built on intricate yet accessible arrangements, evoking soaring orchestral textures which meld seamlessly with the fire of Celtic session. They draw in their listeners with driving riffs, joyous tunes, and intricate textures and contrast this by stripping back the sound world, returning to their roots of listening to and playing folk music with mesmerisingly delicate and intimate arrangements.

“It’s fabulous, it’s great, Thank you”

• Genevive Tudor, BBC

2026 sees the release of their new studio album, Halfway Home, in collaboration with producer and guest artist Cormac Byrne (The Haar, Seth Lakeman band).

It’s interesting to see an uprise of concern regarding crossing at the canal bridge, alongside what could be deemed as ‘staged’ photos to help whip up a frenzy to oppose a new housing development.

So with that being said – why are we yet to see those same people raise concern every Christmas when a giant tree is erected in the busiest part of the village, completely blocking a safe crossing point and forcing people to walk in the road unseen. Those junctions are bad enough as it is without the view being completely obscured.

If you want to talk about one then you have to talk about the other! Or shall we pick and choose to suit your ‘Audlem’ agenda?

The Cheshire East planning portal continues to seemingly vex us & obstruct our objections or comments to the revised outline planning application...many of us have tried to lodge comments & objections without being able to do so (or in my case, did so last week but without confirmation or any sign of the submission) this seems grossly unfair especially with the looming deadline closing date of Thursday 9th April fast approaching. Phil Dolan has kindly updated us that you can also email your comments directly to the planning dept, (which I did) but it has now bounced back to as undeliverable...it's almost as though they are trying to deliberately stop objections!? In the end I have hard-copy posted them a cover letter & my objections to: Mr Daniel Evans, Planning officer, Development Planning, Cheshire East Council, PO Box 606, Crewe, Cheshire CW1 9HP. I sent mine via recorded delivery, collected by the postman at my door (you can arrange this via the Royal Mail website). Or complain/contact via another email: planning@cheshireeast.gov.uk We still have 3 days to go so please ACT NOW & comment on the planning application (25/2194/OUT) to SAVE OUR VILLAGE from irreversible damage.

Why is it I’m having a déjà vu moment when reading posts about Muller and the Coop parking arrangements, for what could or should have happened? I’m sure many Audlem residents will know more about this than I do but when you look closely at the new plan Muller submitted, very late in the day, it says that “the drawing will be subject to change following Local Authority review and confirmation of Public Highway and third party land boundaries.” Does this mean that it is meaningless and as such does not address the dangers of crossing the canal bridge. By building 116 house and creating around 300 extra pedestrians, the risk to the new residents will always be there. These proposed houses are being built in the wrong place. I hope that CE Planners now realise that even Muller accept that the bridge crossing is dangerous. Putting a plan on the website that, by their own admission will change, does not address the bridge problem. If planning was granted, without a properly thought through and approved plan in place, Audlem would be left to live with a legacy of serious traffic problems or alternatively lives being put at risk if nothing was done.

Put simply, if these houses are constructed on this side of the bridge they can’t be unbuilt and without a bypass being built, which won’t happen, Audlem residents will be the ones that suffer. There appears to be a lot of risk and uncertainty, all for 116 houses!

That may be a good point Geoff Seddon, about the "give way" being close to the driveway, and one that I hadn't thought of. Do you know if there is a specific road layout regulation which this contravenes?

I think the real elephant in the room is not the bridge, but the amount of traffic which builds up in the centre of the village. I don't remember this being anywhere near as bad before the previous development by Muller which Jim mentions. Does anybody know why they were never forced to correct this?

At this point, I think the traffic situation is a lost cause unless several parking spaces -- maybe all -- are removed from the centre of the village. I don't want to belabour the point about Wybunbury, as that was only an example, and I'm not suggesting that Audlem and and Wybunbury are "the same". However, if you think about driving from the Boars Head through Wybunbury towards Shavington, where can you reliably expect to get held up? By the school and by the Post Office. Why? Because of on-road parking. You normally breeze across the single-lane bridge over the river. Audlem is the same, but on steroids. All the time we have significant on-road parking, we will continue to have problems.

This has been made worse by a charge being introduced for the village car park; now the road by the Scout Hut has suffered the same fate. If the canal wasn't an obstacle, I'd be suggesting that Muller pay for a bypass.

For many, the 1st of April is the only day of year when people critically evaluate things they read on the internet before accepting them as true.
Well done as ever for this years contributions.

Further to previous comments, the intended 'give way' marking is very close to the canal bridge itself. This means that the waiting traffic heading towards the village centre will block the vehicle entrance to both 14 and 16 Shropshire Street. Surely, this should not happen. The 'give way' marking needs to be before their vehicle entrance.

The problem will be exacerbated by the additional 216 vehicles allowed for in the revised plans for the proposed development – all using Tollgate Drive to exit onto the A525/A529 junction. Using data for previous applications for the site, it appears that peak-time traffic will increase by more than 80 vehicles at this junction.

It also appears that the traffic data provided by Eddison's is dated 2015. Let's be generous and say it's only ten years out of date!

Please include these points in your objections. Thank you.

I am puzzled how the Eddisons proposal can be seen in a positive light? Audlem is a busy 4-way main road junction & is not comparable with Wybunbury in any way. It doesn't assist pedestrians in any material way at all, and introduces more complication with likely examples of drivers trying to dash through before the oncoming vehicle. This development would add up to 250 extra cars, and many of these will be forced to queue up on Tollgate Drive, only exacerbated by the new bottleneck. Green lane will likely also back right up at busy times as a result and we are likely to see traffic backing up all the way to Moorsfield Av. & beyond on Whitchurch Rd, on the narrowest main road in the village, meaning traffic heading west is even MORE likely to mount the pavement to get by. The proposal will significantly add pollution & worse traffic jams in the village. This is just tinkering at the edges trying to give the impression of mitigation whereas in reality it simply serves to show us that without a wider road bridge & more width for safer pedestrian access, the proposed development location is clearly unsuitable & therefore totally unsustainable.

On looking at the proposed, so called answer to the canal bridge issue, and comments raised.
We are still living with Mullers previous disaster with the coop development, with promises of off carriageway parking that never happened and has now created a problem that will certainly knock on to these proposals.
The system through Wybunbury has no bearing on this situation as that is a single road a B road at that (well used admittedly) we have two converging A roads the A529 and the A525 that at this very location run together. The restriction/Give way at the bridge would in my view create a much worse traffic build up in all directions as any waiting traffic at the bridge cannot proceed due to emerging traffic from Cheshire street who due to the parked cars outside the shops cant see to give way then have nowhere to go while traffic still approaches from Stafford street, thus having nowhere to go ant that being narrow prevents traffic exiting that way. All this time traffic is building along Whitchurch Road blocking that exit due to being unable to pass (HGV) and the Market Drayton road would be in a similar situation if not worse due to the build up back around the bend to the single track bit and beyond, this being due to traffic exiting Green Lane not being able to exit right or left. (A perfect storm, that could be Very regular)
Right in the middle of all this chaos is the Audlem (ONCALL) FIRE STATION with firemen not able to get too the station or even get the Appliance out.
Muller have created this problem by lying their way through the planning process and pay the right people to come up with enough goof that the majority don't understand and get bored with reading and these things get passed. MULLER DONT LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENSES.
A possible solution to some of the traffic chaos could be count all the parking spaces outside the shops put them on the fire station site and ENFORCE FREE SHORT STAY PARKING and get the developers to pay for building a new fire station in a more accessible and convenient spot on the town boundary, (possibly Cheshire street) this would free the flow of traffic in the centre.
This is massive overdevelopment by greedy short sighted profiteers that Audlem doesn't need.
How's your doctor waiting list?
Sewers blowing up?
Also, a so called country park??? That area has been left more or less fallow for approx. 50yrs and expanse of wildlife down there is excellent as its been left alone. It doesn't need bulldozers putting through it and having people hareing round it. Let the wildlife alone to thrive as it has done.

We are looking for someone locally that could remove a birds nest remains from the apex of a roof and fit a small clear plastic shield to prevent nesting this year.
If anyone is available as soon as possible I would be so grateful if you could contact me on:
07912613409
Many thanks.

Chris – Check out Cheshire East Highways, Bridges and Structures, clearly Cheshire East take on no accountability for most bridges, nor do they have a list of the bridges that the highways cross, the last checks and current weight restrictions, one would assume the bridge over the canal will be the canal and river trusts responsibility, so maybe we need to put a request in to find out when the bridge was last assessed, and the obvious need for an assessment due to the additional HGV activity.

I think the revised plan, drafted by Eddisons looks excellent. Wybunbury has had a similar setup for years, and it seems to work well. It's not clear to me if the plan is proposing to actually *widen* the existing path or merely using bollards to stop traffic from using part of the road. I think it is showing widening on both sides, which would be ideal. The finger post is, I think, largely irrelevant to any objections people may have. The existing post is merely signposting the Weaver Way, which runs along the canal, and I expect the new one would be a continuation of that.

It's incredible that someone hasn't been severely hurt already on this bridge, and even if the housing development doesn't go ahead (I hope it doesn't), I think this new road layout should still be implemented.

I don't understand the concerns raised in the article about traffic backing up into the village, as that traffic would have priority over traffic entering the centre of the village. Someone explain to me if I'm misunderstanding this. My only remaining concern would be what happens to traffic which may back up along the road towards Moorsfield Avenue. This new plan proposes "Keep Clear" markings by Tollgate Drive, which would -- in theory at least -- eliminate any congestion there, but this would push traffic coming from the Whitchurch direction even further back. That would be unnaceptable, as the road leading to Moorsfield is already too narrow, and has a substandard footpath.

If we are "going for growth" -- which I'm against in somewhere like Audlem, but seems to be the way of things -- then we may need a roundabout at the junction of Tollgate Drive and Green Lane, and then traffic lights to make the section between Tollgate Drive and Moorsfield Avenue one-way. Too much?

A slight correction to my earlier post: I suggested the closing date for comments & objects to the was the 4th April, (forgetting it is now extended to the 10th), so gives us all a chance to voice our concerns on the planning application over Easter. (Unlike the developer, I move quickly to correct any error).
Also, we have been in the national news recently, with the HGV traffic congestion crisis caused by the Baddington Bridge closure being recognised by the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gevz2wd95o?at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_link_id=3D620FAC-17DB-11F1-A8DA-95EA5A1EA715&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBC_Stoke&at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_format=image

...So how can any additional traffic volume be considered reasonable, when the village is effectively drowning in HGV traffic? Please all express your views before it is too late and our lovely little village is ruined...Once swamped with over-development, the damage cannot be undone and Audlem will never be the same.

Just a thought, but with the significant increase in HGV traffic through Audlem due to the weight restriction at Baddington Bridge, how long before the increased volume and weight of the vehicles compromises the structural integrity of the bridge over the Shropshire Union Canal?

What a first rate article Roland wellarticulated and reasoned. However, there always is one, would it not add weight to the discussion if CE were asked to send a representative who is prepared to risk crossing the bridge a few times so that they can actually experience the dangers for themselves. Walking the walk would add a whole lot of weight to the argument.

Despite hundreds of pages of reports, surveys and glossy “visual representations,” the single most important issue remains completely unresolved. You can rebrand crossings, replace paving, and reshuffle traffic priorities, but none of that changes the simple, observable fact: the canal bridge is too narrow to safely accommodate pedestrians alongside increasing traffic. This is not a problem that can be engineered away with paperwork or signage—it is a physical constraint that already influences how people behave, and adding hundreds more residents will only intensify the risk. The “elephant in the room” isn’t just still there—it’s standing in the middle of the bridge, and no amount of documentation will make it move.

I also thought Roland's article today was excellent & cut straight to the chase regarding the Muller application: It's not sustainable and no matter how many times they tell us it is, doesn't alter the facts. The previous objections from village residents were so effective because they were so factual (in stark contrast to the developers absurd & erroneous claims) and as a result of the objections we all raised, they are now tinkering around the edges trying to give the impression they can mitigate things that cannot be substantially altered, which is WHY the application is not viable. If this development went ahead, even with the recent proposed traffic revisions (which seem create much more severe traffic & road safety issues than they solve) then every resident here or who travels through the village will be negatively impacted to varing degrees in the future. Now is not the time for apathy; If our views were not important the developer wouldn't keep trying to appease the objections, so everyone please OBJECT to planning application 25/2194/OUT before 4th April closure date. Your views DO matter & DO have an impact.

What a brilliant posting by Roland Turner today on AoL! (My only criticism is that he didn't give any details of the camera used, aperture etc. for the photos illustrating his article, as such information is obviously of vital importance when submitting planning documentation, as he pointed out).
Perhaps he could be awarded the Freedom of Audlem, i.e. to walk SAFELY over the canal bridge, en route to our village Post Office, wherever that may be; or whilst trying to find the non-existent bus stop for the non-existent Whitchurch bus. But not to worry about such minor details!

For the last 20 or so years a group has met in various locations to provide relaxation and advice to those caring for someone of any age and with any condition who can be left for a short time. Lately the venue is the public hall annex, Thornton room at 10.30 on the first Wednesday of the month. Coffee and cake etc for a nominal £3. Recently numbers have dwindled and the group may have to cease so this is a last call for anyone to come along so that we can keep going.

Commenting on this application is still possible but time is running out.

The application number is 25/2194/OUT and if you follow the step by step instructions on the Cheshire East website planning window then it is simple enough to do.

Again the application number is 25/2194/OUT